Gable Tostee

[Samson]

Quite shocked at the bigotry in the posts on this thread.

We are assumed "innocent until proven guilty" are we not? Here you are discussing how to frame murder on an innocent man.

Kidnapping? He restrained her on the ground after she physically and verbally assaulted him for an hour. She had struck him in the head with a metal object and had begun trashing his property.

I have ignored this case since it initially happened. I was not aware the recordings were available for such a long time.

So now it as at trial & the verdict will be soon.

I have listened to 40 minutes of the recordings and read a fair amount. Nothing suggests a murder or even warrants the manslaughter charge however I understand the due process of law must be followed.

Now my initial reaction when this happened in 2014 was the standard knee jerk reaction, evil nutter murdered a poor girl, rapist etc.

Lets establish the facts.

Tostee was popular with the ladies, a player. He has no record of sexual assault or indecency.

On the evening in question both parties agreed mutually to get drunk & have sex. The young lady was equally a party to this mutual sex between total strangers.

Both of them sounded drunk or very drunk on the recording.

Tostee seemed to be trying to be a gentleman throughout the evening all be it a drunken idiot. The young woman Warriena was clearly unable to handle the amount of alcohol she consumed and became beligerant.

It sounds like she assaulted tostee for at least an hour during which time he was self restrained & trying to be as polite as possible for a drunk having sex with a stranger. She also abused him verbally for at least an hour in her drunken state.

Warriena clearly had lost her self control, very drunk and became increasingly violent. At some point she began to trash the appartment, throwing objects at Tostee who himself even up to this point was non-threatening & non-violent.

She then grabbed a telescope stand and hit him in the head with it - it was at this time that Tostee tackled her to the ground and held her there while saying unpleasant things to her. It seems she was still holding the metal object at this stage.

Keep in mind she had begun to trash the apartment at this stage & could have smashed the glass door.

Tostee at no time struck her.

He stuck her out on the balcony probably to cool her off. She became hysterical, tried to climb over the balcony and fell.

OK, what we have is a classic defensive knee jerk reaction. It is not even manslaughter. She assaulted him multiple times and was about to vandalise his property.

She was free to communicate with neighbours from the balcony & she was clearly a danger to herself unable to be escorted home.

What else was he to do? He did not hit her, he held her on the ground after she hit him in the head. He did not verbally abuse her throughout the evening. She did it to him.

If I was on the jury it would be a not guilty from me unless there is further evidence we have not been told.


As for male vs female predudice etc that is bigotry. This is a criminal case. It was clearly neither manslaughter nor murder & it was not kidnapping either. She was a danger to herself and others. The balcony was the best place for her to be had she not climbed off it.

Welcome to the forum gareththomasnz, we discuss many NZ cases here too.

I generally agree, and most certainly that the scary "vertical fence" could be expected to keep her safe. Furthermore there are complicating factors, particularly his recent police record, which was driving, not violence to anyone. This would invoke regrettable caution in allowing her to storm down to the foyer and call the police.
However in law, and judging by views on the thread he looks sure to go down for manslaughter.

 

[erwinl]

Quite shocked at the bigotry in the posts on this thread.

We are assumed "innocent until proven guilty" are we not? Here you are discussing how to frame murder on an innocent man.

Kidnapping? He restrained her on the ground after she physically and verbally assaulted him for an hour. She had struck him in the head with a metal object and had begun trashing his property.

I have ignored this case since it initially happened. I was not aware the recordings were available for such a long time.

So now it is at trial & the verdict will be soon.

I have listened to 40 minutes of the recordings and read a fair amount. Nothing suggests a murder or even warrants the manslaughter charge however I understand the due process of law must be followed.

Now my initial reaction when this happened in 2014 was the standard knee jerk reaction, evil nutter murdered a poor girl, rapist etc.

Lets establish the facts.

Tostee was popular with the ladies, a player. He has no record of sexual assault or indecency.

On the evening in question both parties agreed mutually to get drunk & have sex. The young lady was equally a party to this mutual sex between total strangers.

Both of them sounded drunk or very drunk on the recording.

Tostee seemed to be trying to be a gentleman throughout the evening all be it a drunken idiot. The young woman Warriena was clearly unable to handle the amount of alcohol she consumed and became beligerant.

It sounds like she assaulted tostee for at least an hour during which time he was self restrained & trying to be as polite as possible for a drunk having sex with a stranger. She also abused him verbally for at least an hour in her drunken state.

Warriena clearly had lost her self control, very drunk and became increasingly violent. At some point she began to trash the appartment, throwing objects at Tostee who himself even up to this point was non-threatening & non-violent.

She then grabbed a telescope stand and hit him in the head with it - it was at this time that Tostee tackled her to the ground and held her there while saying unpleasant things to her. It seems she was still holding the metal object at this stage.

Keep in mind she had begun to trash the apartment at this stage & could have smashed the glass door.

Tostee at no time struck her. The pathologist has also testified that she was not strangled.

He stuck her out on the balcony probably to cool her off. She became hysterical, tried to climb over the balcony and fell.

OK, what we have is a classic defensive knee jerk reaction. It is not even manslaughter. She assaulted him multiple times and was about to vandalise his property.

She was free to communicate with neighbours from the balcony & she was clearly a danger to herself unable to be escorted home.

What else was he to do? He did not hit her, he held her on the ground after she hit him in the head. He did not verbally abuse her throughout the evening. She did it to him.

If I was on the jury it would be a not guilty from me unless there is further evidence we have not been told.


As for male vs female predudice etc that is bigotry. This is a criminal case. It was clearly neither manslaughter nor murder & it was not kidnapping either. She was a danger to herself and others. The balcony was the best place for her to be had she not climbed off it.

In short. That doesn't matter.

Because, no matter what she did before that, he locked her up in an unsafe place. Unsafe, because she was very, very drunk. As a consequence of that locking up, she fell to her death.
That was because of his doing.

 

[Fixit]

Quite shocked at the bigotry in the posts on this thread.

We are assumed "innocent until proven guilty" are we not? Here you are discussing how to frame murder on an innocent man.

Kidnapping? He restrained her on the ground after she physically and verbally assaulted him for an hour. She had struck him in the head with a metal object and had begun trashing his property.

I have ignored this case since it initially happened. I was not aware the recordings were available for such a long time.

So now it is at trial & the verdict will be soon.

I have listened to 40 minutes of the recordings and read a fair amount. Nothing suggests a murder or even warrants the manslaughter charge however I understand the due process of law must be followed.

Now my initial reaction when this happened in 2014 was the standard knee jerk reaction, evil nutter murdered a poor girl, rapist etc.

Lets establish the facts.

Tostee was popular with the ladies, a player. He has no record of sexual assault or indecency.

On the evening in question both parties agreed mutually to get drunk & have sex. The young lady was equally a party to this mutual sex between total strangers.

Both of them sounded drunk or very drunk on the recording.

Tostee seemed to be trying to be a gentleman throughout the evening all be it a drunken idiot. The young woman Warriena was clearly unable to handle the amount of alcohol she consumed and became beligerant.

It sounds like she assaulted tostee for at least an hour during which time he was self restrained & trying to be as polite as possible for a drunk having sex with a stranger. She also abused him verbally for at least an hour in her drunken state.

Warriena clearly had lost her self control, very drunk and became increasingly violent. At some point she began to trash the appartment, throwing objects at Tostee who himself even up to this point was non-threatening & non-violent.

She then grabbed a telescope stand and hit him in the head with it - it was at this time that Tostee tackled her to the ground and held her there while saying unpleasant things to her. It seems she was still holding the metal object at this stage.

Keep in mind she had begun to trash the apartment at this stage & could have smashed the glass door.

Tostee at no time struck her. The pathologist has also testified that she was not strangled.

He stuck her out on the balcony probably to cool her off. She became hysterical, tried to climb over the balcony and fell.

OK, what we have is a classic defensive knee jerk reaction. It is not even manslaughter. She assaulted him multiple times and was about to vandalise his property.

She was free to communicate with neighbours from the balcony & she was clearly a danger to herself unable to be escorted home.

What else was he to do? He did not hit her, he held her on the ground after she hit him in the head. He did not verbally abuse her throughout the evening. She did it to him.

If I was on the jury it would be a not guilty from me unless there is further evidence we have not been told.


As for male vs female predudice etc that is bigotry. This is a criminal case. It was clearly neither manslaughter nor murder & it was not kidnapping either. She was a danger to herself and others. The balcony was the best place for her to be had she not climbed off it.

Greetings.

'What else was he to do?' you ask.

Let her leave or ring the police. Putting someone somewhere from where they can't leave is not only dubious, but downright dangerous if they are in a stressed state, suddenly they are powerless and don't know the other person's intentions. I believe she called out to be let go. I don't think he had the right to do what he did, restrain her in such a fashion when there were other alternatives. If it was poor judgement that needs to be explained by him (and I understand he is not going to give evidence which may prove fatal to his chances). Arguing that he was left with no other alternative is a dangerous risk if he is innocent, though I hope he pulls it off if that is the case. He's a big man and she appeared to be very small.

 

[gareththomasnz]

Normally yes, but when that person has physically and verbally assaulted you for an hour, left you with bleeding welts, begun to damage your property and has possession of a blunt instrument that they have struck you with you restrain them & put them somewhere they can not further do you damage.

How do you know he was not planning to call the police?

I assume he intended to leave her there to sober up

Also a question to you - how much of the recording have you listed to?

I have listed to 40 minutes chronologically.

As this case was it could have been between two females, muliple people of either sex, two males. There is clear bias because it was a man and a woman.

Some time ago I had a friend that got drunk and the story police were told is that he fell from a chair & broke his neck. Now this guy was a scraper & the odds that this is what really happened are slim. There was no court case. Yet he was most probably killed wrestling in a fight.

Here because it is a female that screamed hysterically there is an assumption of guilt - that is wrong & it degrades the law and the civil rights we all have.

Warrena Wright had no right to assault Tostee or verbally abuse him. He at no time stuck her or behaved maliciously. Finally at the end his temper snapped and even then all he did was restrain her & put her out on the porch.

Honestly if you have not listened to as much of the recording as possible you should refrain from forming an opinion

I still have an open mind if there is incriminating content I have not heard in the full context.

 

[lionking]

Normally yes, but when that person has physically and verbally assaulted you for an hour, left you with bleeding welts, begun to damage your property and has possession of a blunt instrument that they have struck you with you restrain them & put them somewhere they can not further do you damage.

How do you know he was not planning to call the police?

I assume he intended to leave her there to sober up

Also a question to you - how much of the recording have you listed to?

I have listed to 40 minutes chronologically.

As this case was it could have been between two females, muliple people of either sex, two males. There is clear bias because it was a man and a woman.

Some time ago I had a friend that got drunk and the story police were told is that he fell from a chair & broke his neck. Now this guy was a scraper & the odds that this is what really happened are slim. There was no court case. Yet he was most probably killed wrestling in a fight.

Here because it is a female that screamed hysterically there is an assumption of guilt - that is wrong & it degrades the law and the civil rights we all have.

Warrena Wright had no right to assault Tostee or verbally abuse him. He at no time stuck her or behaved maliciously. Finally at the end his temper snapped and even then all he did was restrain her & put her out on the porch.

Honestly if you have not listened to as much of the recording as possible you should refrain from forming an opinion

I still have an open mind if there is incriminating content I have not heard in the full context.

Where is the evidence of these horrible assaults and grave injuries? Did you see the video of him going out to get a pizza shortly after this murder?

 

[Samson]

Where is the evidence of these horrible assaults and grave injuries? Did you see the video of him going out to get a pizza shortly after this murder?

Seriously, LK that pizza stuff is part of what screwed Knox. You know about this stuff.
This guy knew he was in deep trouble obviously albeit not that he had recorded the whole session for scrutiny. What should he do?

Maybe the recording saves him, else all the evidence is the screaming and the fall.

 

[lionking]

Seriously, LK that pizza stuff is part of what screwed Knox. You know about this stuff.
This guy knew he was in deep trouble obviously albeit not that he had recorded the whole session for scrutiny. What should he do?

Maybe the recording saves him, else all the evidence is the screaming and the fall.

What utter crap. And stop trying to derail this thread. This has nothing to do with Knox. At all.

Start posting sensibly.

 

[banquetbear]

Normally yes, but when that person has physically and verbally assaulted you for an hour, left you with bleeding welts, begun to damage your property and has possession of a blunt instrument that they have struck you with you restrain them & put them somewhere they can not further do you damage.

...hi Gable!

Was he incapable of making her leave the apartment? Was he physically unable to call the police? He didn't have the option of leaving the apartment and calling the police safely from outside? If he truly feared for his life as you seem to think, that was the logical option, was it not? It is what I would have done.

How do you know he was not planning to call the police?

Because he didn't. "Intent" to call the police is not actually calling the police. He had an hour, did he not? Then after she fell, he went out and bought a pizza! He had time to leave the apartment, buy, then eat a pizza, then call his dad. And he still hadn't called the police.

I doubt he had any plans at all to call the police. Warriena Wright did, however, have plans to call the police. Can you remind everyone in the thread why she wasn't able to call the police again?

I assume he intended to leave her there to sober up

And that would be a crime.

Also a question to you - how much of the recording have you listed to?

I have listed to 40 minutes chronologically.

Why only 40 minutes?

As this case was it could have been between two females, muliple people of either sex, two males. There is clear bias because it was a man and a woman.

And you've got no comparative case to make this claim. I don't believe this to be true.

Some time ago I had a friend that got drunk and the story police were told is that he fell from a chair & broke his neck. Now this guy was a scraper & the odds that this is what really happened are slim. There was no court case. Yet he was most probably killed wrestling in a fight.

Who gives a **** about one of your personal anecdotes? I've got a hundred of them. None of them are relevant to this case.

Here because it is a female that screamed hysterically there is an assumption of guilt - that is wrong & it degrades the law and the civil rights we all have.

If I decide that someone is guilty of a crime that does not degrade the law or someone's civil rights at all. We don't have thought police here in NZ and they don't have it in Australia. Taking away my right to believe in guilt or innocence would be degrading my civil rights. Is that what you want to do?

Warrena Wright had no right to assault Tostee or verbally abuse him. He at no time stuck her or behaved maliciously. Finally at the end his temper snapped and even then all he did was restrain her & put her out on the porch.

Gable Tostee had no right to detain Warrena Wright. None at all. He had the option of calling police: but as you state for an hour he chose not too. He could have put her outside the door. But he chose not too. The decisions that he made are why he is now in court.

Honestly if you have not listened to as much of the recording as possible you should refrain from forming an opinion

Honestly: why do you think that 40 minutes is "as much as possible?" Surely you can do better than that!

I still have an open mind if there is incriminating content I have not heard in the full context.

It doesn't look very open to me.

 

[Samson]

What utter crap. And stop trying to derail this thread. This has nothing to do with Knox. At all.

Start posting sensibly.

You know full well that it is legendary how people behave in unexpected ways after unexpected real life catastrophic events, so no derail when the analogy is specific. Pizza and pizza.
Have you listened to the 40 minutes referred to?
I haven't but it sounds what I expect, chaos emerging from trivial and mundane input.

 

[banquetbear]

Seriously, LK that pizza stuff is part of what screwed Knox. You know about this stuff.

...here's an interesting thought. Every day, all around the world, there are thousands of legal cases being prosecuted. In many of them the defendant will get a fair trial. They will have competent defenders, and the prosecution will have gathered their evidence in a fair and proper manner. But there will be cases where the defense is incompetent, or where the police planted evidence, or where the prosecutors hold back evidence that they should have disclosed.

Do you know what those thousands of cases have in common with the Amanda Knox case? They have absolutely nothing to do with this case.

If you want to talk about Amanda Knox, then there is a thread about that case. You might know about it. But if you want to talk about it in this thread? Then it has to be relevant. And "pizza" is hardly a common thread. Pizza just happens to be what Gable chose to eat when he walked out of his apartment complex. He may have chosen burgers. And if he did choose burgers, would you still think there is a connection to the Knox case?

This guy knew he was in deep trouble obviously albeit not that he had recorded the whole session for scrutiny. What should he do?

Call the freaking police.

Maybe the recording saves him, else all the evidence is the screaming and the fall.

The recording should convict him. Because it was clear that he had plenty of options. He just chose the worst possible options he could have.

 

[Samson]

...here's an interesting thought. Every day, all around the world, there are thousands of legal cases being prosecuted. In many of them the defendant will get a fair trial. They will have competent defenders, and the prosecution will have gathered their evidence in a fair and proper manner. But there will be cases where the defense is incompetent, or where the police planted evidence, or where the prosecutors hold back evidence that they should have disclosed.

Do you know what those thousands of cases have in common with the Amanda Knox case? They have absolutely nothing to do with this case.

If you want to talk about Amanda Knox, then there is a thread about that case. You might know about it. But if you want to talk about it in this thread? Then it has to be relevant. And "pizza" is hardly a common thread. Pizza just happens to be what Gable chose to eat when he walked out of his apartment complex. He may have chosen burgers. And if he did choose burgers, would you still think there is a connection to the Knox case?



Call the freaking police.



The recording should convict him. Because it was clear that he had plenty of options. He just chose the worst possible options he could have.

The pizza is redolent of the infamous quote of Knox, I'd kill for a pizza.
Absolutely irrelevant in the context of a recent event, just as Tostee wandering in a daze and eating pizza is in the context of the catastrophe he was nailed to.
There is a serious refusal to imagine a chain of events that leads to varied outcomes that commonly never come to the attention of anyone.

 

[Ben1985]

Agree mostly with gareththomasnz

If you read the full transcript of the recording (which has been publicly available for over two years):

Wright become highly intoxicated.
She faked losing her phone and accused Tostee of stealing it before revealing she had it on her person the entire time.
Later she started to become violent and began throwing rocks at Tostee.
He then repeatedly and increasingly angrily asked her to leave (this was when he said "you're lucky I haven't chucked you off the balcony).
She stayed.
He then tried to physically throw her out (this is when he said "You're not taking any of your things, I'm throwing you out just as you are")
She grabbed a telescope and hit him with it.
He then pinned her to the floor and forced her to drop it.
He threw her onto the balcony, accused her of trying to kill him and said he had proof (the recording).
She begged him to let her go and she refused ("I would but you've been a bad girl")
He then locked the door, she screamed and then silence.

I understand the cops are relying on a precedent where a woman jumped out her 9th story window when her husband came at her with a knife. This case is very different though. By locking her out on they balcony Tostee removed any immediate threat of harm

All up, it seems more like he was threatening to press charges than to kill her. His actions in locking her on the balcony where definitely vindictive and malicious, but it's fairly clear that he never intended her physical harm imo.

Now you could argue that leaving a drunk, frightened and unbalanced young woman on the balcony was reckless/criminally negligent. Manslaughter maybe, but definitely not murder imo.

The judge that granted him bail said as much when she stated that the case for a murder charge was not strong and that manslaughter might be more appropriate.

 

[banquetbear]

The pizza is redolent of the infamous quote of Knox, I'd kill for a pizza.

...that quote is so infamous, that googling it: brings up absolutely NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT AMANDA KNOX.

I mean, WTF? I added the term "Knox" to the google search and all I got were the "paranoid obsessive" internet forums where people have devoted their lives to this particular case appear to dwell, but that was it.

This quote isn't "infamous" at all. It didn't even give me more than 10 results on google. It is only "infamous" to people following the case. No one else on the planet has a clue as to what you are talking about. So why on earth do you think its relevant to this case?

Absolutely irrelevant in the context of a recent event, just as Tostee wandering in a daze is in the context of the catastrophe he was nailed to.

Yes: its irrelevant to this case. So why did you bring it up?

There is a serious refusal to imagine a chain of events that leads to varied outcomes that commonly never come to the attention of anyone.

There isn't a refusal at all. What happened here was obviously the result of a chain of very bad decisions. But just because Gable may regret the decisions he made that day, that doesn't excuse him from the decisions he made that day.

 

[Samson]

...that quote is so infamous, that googling it: brings up absolutely NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT AMANDA KNOX.

I mean, WTF? I added the term "Knox" to the google search and all I got were the "paranoid obsessive" internet forums where people have devoted their lives to this particular case appear to dwell, but that was it.

This quote isn't "infamous" at all. It didn't even give me more than 10 results on google. It is only "infamous" to people following the case. No one else on the planet has a clue as to what you are talking about. So why on earth do you think its relevant to this case?



Yes: its irrelevant to this case. So why did you bring it up?



There isn't a refusal at all. What happened here was obviously the result of a chain of very bad decisions. But just because Gable may regret the decisions he made that day, that doesn't excuse him from the decisions he made that day.

You missed then lionking's post where he talked about pizza, he also was prolific on Knox threads.
The theme is
1. There has been a death, and certain actions are ok
2. But not eating pizza.
We now have two posters better informed than the rest of us because they are bringing detail.
Unless your plan is to describe the whole 3 hour tape.

 

[catsmate]

Quite shocked at the bigotry in the posts on this thread.

Really?

We are assumed "innocent until proven guilty" are we not? Here you are discussing how to frame murder on an innocent man.

No we're not.

Kidnapping? He restrained her on the ground after she physically and verbally assaulted him for an hour. She had struck him in the head with a metal object and had begun trashing his property.

Why didn't be call the police? He forcibly and unlawfully imprisoned her.

So now it is at trial & the verdict will be soon.

Indeed.

Tostee was popular with the ladies, a player. He has no record of sexual assault or indecency.

Irrelevant.

On the evening in question both parties agreed mutually to get drunk & have sex. The young lady was equally a party to this mutual sex between total strangers.

Also irrelevant. Also consent may be withdrawn at any time.

Both of them sounded drunk or very drunk on the recording.

Irrelevant.

Tostee seemed to be trying to be a gentleman throughout the evening all be it a drunken idiot.

The young woman Warriena was clearly unable to handle the amount of alcohol she consumed and became beligerant.

Then Tostee should have ejected her, called the police or medical services.
He didn't.

Warriena clearly had lost her self control, very drunk and became increasingly violent. At some point she began to trash the appartment, throwing objects at Tostee who himself even up to this point was non-threatening & non-violent.

That is not "clear" at all.

He stuck her out on the balcony probably to cool her off. She became hysterical, tried to climb over the balcony and fell.

His actions led to her death. He had other options, like ejecting her, which he didn't take. Why?

OK, what we have is a classic defensive knee jerk reaction. It is not even manslaughter.

She was free to communicate with neighbours from the balcony & she was clearly a danger to herself unable to be escorted home.

Why weren't the police called?

What else was he to do?

Call the police and/or medical services.

As for male vs female predudice etc that is bigotry.

This is a criminal case. It was clearly neither manslaughter nor murder & it was not kidnapping either. She was a danger to herself and others. The balcony was the best place for her to be had she not climbed off it.

 

[catsmate]

Wild conjecture devoid of evidence. This large, strong guy could have easily put her out the front door and/or called the police. Instead he put on the balcony and threatened to throw her over.

Oh, and I'm not a member of the jury and can give my opinion based on the facts in front of me. I'm not bound by the "innocent before found guilty" legality.

And this is the interesting part. Even if Tostee didn't call the police why not just eject her?
Give gareththomasnz's rampant speculation here some of mine; he planned to have sex with her, in her intoxicated state.

 

[catsmate]

Normally yes, but when that person has physically and verbally assaulted you for an hour, left you with bleeding welts, begun to damage your property and has possession of a blunt instrument that they have struck you with you restrain them & put them somewhere they can not further do you damage.

He could have called the police.

How do you know he was not planning to call the police?

He had opportunity yet he didn't.

I assume he intended to leave her there to sober up

There is clear bias because it was a man and a woman.

Evidence?

Here because it is a female that screamed hysterically there is an assumption of guilt - that is wrong & it degrades the law and the civil rights we all have.

A dead female. The bias simply drips from your posts.

 

[banquetbear]

You missed then lionking's post where he talked about pizza, he also was prolific on Knox threads.

...I saw him talk about pizza.

I talked about pizza.

What if it had been burgers? Would it then be relevant to the Knox case?

lionking's participation in the Knox thread is irrelevant. I've participated in the Knox threads as well.

The theme is

This is a discussion forum. We don't have "themes."

1. There has been a death, and certain actions are ok
2. But not eating pizza.

Well, eating pizza most certainly was not an "okay" action. When you illegally detain someone, then that person falls to their death off of your balcony, YOU DON'T GO BUY PIZZA. You call the police. You call an ambulance. You try and get help. You don't shrug your shoulders and go get a feed.

Well you can go and get a feed if you like. Just don't be surprised if you later then get arrested and charged for murder.

We now have two posters better informed than the rest of us because they are bringing detail.

These two posters coincidentally not only bring up identical points, they are both brand new to the forums! A big welcome is in order. Welcome to the forums you two!

Now: neither of them bought any cites. So until they do: they are just people saying things on a messageboard. I don't know where you are getting they are "better informed than the rest of us." Why do you think that?

Unless your plan is to describe the whole 3 hour tape.

You truly are the "king of the non-sequitur." WTF is this sentence all about?

 

[Samson]

Banquet bear,
I have not listened to the whole tape, it is three hours, that is what that is about. I have listened to very little, but the new posters are informed. That is good, and they should be applauded for that.

 

[banquetbear]

Banquet bear,
I have not listened to the whole tape, it is three hours, that is what that is about. I have listened to very little, but the new posters are informed. That is good, and they should be applauded for that.

...but what about the burgers? You haven't answered my question about the burgers yet.

Just because they allegedly "listened to the tape" that doesn't mean they are relaying what they heard accurately, and it doesn't mean they are "better informed." There isn't anything they have said that anyone following along on the case doesn't already know. They haven't bought anything new to the table except for a "different perspective."

Tostee knows he is recording the conversation. And it is entirely within the realms of possibility he is saying things for the recording. But that is for the jury to decide.